An Israeli airstrike targeting a Hezbollah bunker has reportedly resulted in the death of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. If confirmed, this would conclude an aggressive ten-day military campaign that commenced with a series of coordinated detonations of Hezbollah pagers, proceeded to eliminate prominent military leaders, and now appears to dismantle the organization at its core.
While diplomats and human rights advocates may express concern, Israel’s actions could be seen not only as justified but also as a crucial lesson for future U.S. and European policymakers.
Diplomats often possess a tendency to either overstate the advantages of dialogue or assert its inevitability. For instance, in 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasized the necessity of engaging with the Taliban, asserting that one does not make peace with friends but must engage with enemies.
However, some adversaries are so reprehensible that absolute defeat must be the objective. This belief was central during World War II, leading to the eventual transformation of Germany and Japan into staunch defenders of the post-war liberal order. Imposing terms on Japan did not result in frantic violence; rather, it provided a fresh beginning for the Japanese populace, who demonstrated their readiness to abandon blind loyalty to the emperor.
Other regimes have faced collapse through the assassination or military removal of their leaders. Uganda experienced a resurgence after a Tanzanian incursion ousted the brutal dictator Idi Amin, who later lived in exile in Saudi Arabia. The Khmer Rouge was dismantled following Vietnam’s invasion, which drove Pol Pot into hiding.
The 18-year reign of terror by the Baader-Meinhof Gang ended with their ideological defeat rather than their integration into the mainstream. The Islamic State was defeated not through diplomatic negotiations but via the killing of its self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If previous U.S. administrations had refrained from legitimizing the Taliban and instead pursued their total defeat, the current plight of women in Afghanistan might have been vastly different, and the country may not have become a breeding ground for global terrorism.
Nasrallah’s potential demise raises questions about the efficacy of Western diplomatic efforts in recent years. No organization should have accorded Nasrallah any form of legitimacy, especially following his 2002 comment regarding the Jewish population. Calls for ceasefires made by officials from previous U.S. administrations and the United Nations have ultimately misled global efforts against threats like Hezbollah.
As Hezbollah faces disintegration from Israel’s recent offensive, the group may find more support among certain demographics outside Lebanon than within its borders. The elimination of Hezbollah could not only prevent a more extensive conflict between Israel and Lebanon but also liberate the Lebanese people long oppressed by Hezbollah’s stranglehold, stifling their aspirations for a Western-aligned state.
The implications for Washington are more expansive. Previous diplomatic approaches have inadvertently strengthened groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, while financially empowering entities like the Taliban and North Korea, as well as the Iranian regime. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the U.S. should identify and exploit the weaknesses of its adversaries, striving to bring oppressive regimes to their knees. If Nasrallah’s death leads to the downfall of Hezbollah, one might speculate on the impact of similar outcomes for Iran’s leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other military officials.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach exemplifies that terrorist organizations and radical ideologies do not have to be enduring elements of the global landscape; rather, they should be perceived as threats that need to be eradicated.